Disposed

The National Housing v. Sri. C.T. Benjamin

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2022CCC/1013/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a 1994 contempt petition filed against the State for disobeying an order to deliver land possession. Given pending writ petitions by unauthorized occupants and existing interim orders, the Court dropped the petition, reserving liberty to file a fresh one after the pending matters are resolved.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dropped with liberty to file a fresh application after the disposal of pending writ petitions regarding the land.

The National Housing Vs Sri. C.T. Benjamin — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M. G. UMA

¶8

CCC NO.1013 OF 1994 (Civil)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE NATIONAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR B. RAMAMURTHY, S/O. BALAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, 5TH CROSS MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SRI. K.R.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV. (VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶13

AND

¶14

SRI C.T. BENJAMIN

¶15

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶16

OF KARNATAKA, M.S.BUILDING

¶17

DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD

¶18

BENGALURU 560 001

¶19

SMT. PARVATI THIMMAIAH

¶20

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

¶21

OFFICER, VISVESWARAIAH TOWER PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD

¶22

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶23

... ACCUSED

¶24

(BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP. (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶25

¶26

THIS CCC IS FILED U/Ss.11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AND TAKE ACTION FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER DATED 10.02.1994 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.10751/1993.

¶27

THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

This contempt petition is filed by the complainant against the accused - State, to take action under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience of the order passed in writ petition No.10751/1993, wherein, the learned Single Judge while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, directed the respondents - State to deliver possession of the lands taken by the Government as per Annexures A and B and hand over the same to the petitioner - Society, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶30

Shri K.R.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the

¶31

complainant submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, several writ petitions were filed by

¶32

¶33

unauthorised occupants, who are in possession of the portion of the lands as per Annexure 'A' and 'B' to the impugned writ petition and the possession of the same was taken by the Government and that, the interim orders are granted in few of those writ petitions, by this Court. He would submit that though earlier, the present contempt petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to file revive application, the complainant filed an application in Misc.W.No.10897/2010, seeking revival of the present contempt petition and the same came to be allowed by the order dated 11.07.2011, passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶34

He would fairly submit that several writ petitions are pending before this Court and interim orders are still subsisting. Therefore, reserving liberty to the complainant - Society to approach the Government or to file necessary application in the pending writ petitions before this Court for vacating the interim orders, as the complainant is also a party to the proceedings, this contempt petition may be closed.

¶35

¶36

Shri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court

¶37

Government Pleader submits that on verification and instructions obtained from the accused persons, as on today i.e., 13.01.2022, there are 17 writ petitions pending before this Court in respect of the portion of the lands at Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the impugned writ petition and the possession of the lands was also taken by the Government. He also submits that interim orders are granted by this Court and they are taking steps to vacate the interim orders or to seek for disposal of the same on merits.

¶38

The submissions made by both the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned High Court Government Pleader are placed on record.

¶39

In view of the fair submission made by learned counsel for the complainant about the pendency of the proceedings in several writ petitions and interim order granted by this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the present contempt petition which is of the year 1994, has to be disposed, with liberty to the complainant

¶40

¶41

to file necessary application for vacating interim order or to dispose of the writ petitions pending before this Court in respect of the properties in question. To suffice the interest of justice, the matter requires to be closed.

¶42

In view of the above submissions, we pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

a. The contempt petition is hereby dropped.

¶45

b. Reserving liberty to the complainant to file a revive application / fresh contempt petition after the disposal of the various writ petitions pending before this Court, filed by the unauthorised occupants of the portion of the lands at Annexures 'A' and 'B' in the impugned writ petition.

¶46

c. The Government shall also ensure that proper steps shall be taken to file application for vacating interim orders or to dispose of the writ petitions pending before this Court so as to implement the orders passed by the learned

¶47

¶48

Single Judge in writ petition No.10751/1993 dated 10.02.1994, in order to maintain majesty of the Court.

¶49

d. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

nvj

The National Housing v. Sri. C.T. Benjamin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Housing v. Sri. C.T. Benjamin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G B Suryaprakash Vs Sri. Srinivasamurthy

Karthik K Somaiah Vs the State of Karnataka by

State of Karnataka Vs Sri Karthik

Shri Ramesh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna Vs Shri Manjunath

Sri C Nagaraju Vs Sri Selvakumar